Uneasy Rhetoric

That time of year in Congress now behold,
When Flag and Independence day come near,
Our many fearless lawmakers so bold,
Do pass a flag desecration amendment.
(Apologies to Shakespeare)

The last time I saw an American flag burning anywhere but on television, I was enjoying a beer outside the Student Union in college (it’s been a long time). A group of students numbering about four or so took it upon themselves to light up my afternoon by setting fire to Old Glory. They weren’t protesting anything in particular - if anything, they were probably celebrating the very keg of beer from which I was drinking.

It left me hollow and sad. Any American who stoops to burning the flag is burning a symbol of the very essence of protest. The flag represents our Constitution; it represents unity, freedom, justice, history, and all of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. American protesters, left, right, center, or just plain wacko, would be better off wrapping themselves in the flag and reminding everyone that the very nature of what it is to be American is protest and debate, than they would be burning the flag and rejecting all it stands for.

Leave the rejection to people in other countries.

But, by choosing to add just one line to the Constitution, our leaders in Washington, DC have made it clear that the respect the symbol more than the principles it represents. Congress respects this painted piece of cloth more than the inked piece of parchment they hope to amend. Congress will be elevating, in a perverse way, style over substance.

They will be adding an exception clause to the First Amendment’s right to free speech, and they won’t stop the flag burning. If anything, it will increase - making flag burning a crime, instead of simply a faux pas, will make flag desecration a true act of civil disobedience.

Pravda, of all places, reminds us of something Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said:

…as the late Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once so accurately stated, “The principle of free speech is not free speech for those who agree with us but freedom for the speech we hate.” In all free speech controversies there are at least two opposing points of view. If the “popular” view is constitutionally protected, the other must be as well.

The flag desecration amendment masks a more sinister motive. It masks the attempt to silence, or at least block, those who disagree with the actions of this country. Doing so stifles the very nature of the democratic freedoms we are supposed to enjoy.

Of course, even if Congress passes the amendment, 38 states would need to ratify it within 10 years within seven years (note). No small task, but not an insurmountable one. No doubt the ratification campaign’s television ads will show video of counter-cultural types burning flags in the late 1960s. Of course, the most powerful, and most irrelevant, images they will show will be of the American flag being burned in Iran, in Iraq, anywhere where there are those who disagree with the United States.

Those who, like me, oppose constitutional protection for this painted piece of cloth, will be called unpatriotic, un-American, or much, much worse. But that couldn’t be farther from the truth.

At ball games, you’ll likely see me remove my cap and place it over my heart during the Star Spangled Banner. You might even see goosebumps on my skin or a tear in my eye. Some will remember how incredibly sad and angry I was on 9/11 and how I referred to everyone who died as an “American Hero.” When called upon to do so, I will join with others to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because, even though I may quibble with the details, I believe in this “Republic, for which it stands.” I do this not because I want to look patriotic - I do this because I believe in the principles that are supposed to be guiding this country.

I am a Democrat, a liberal, and I am a patriot, but come passage of a flag desecration amendment you can be sure of one thing. I will oppose its ratification with every red, white, and blue bone in my body.

I have little respect for Americans who feel the need to burn the flag in protest, but it’s a whole lot better than burning the Constitution.

Note (6/29/2005): There is no Constitutional limit to the amount of time states have to ratify a proposed amendment; however, Congress may chose to set a limit (typically seven years) in its proposals. I either pulled 10 years from thin air or heard that was the limit set in the proposal. Actually, the proposal sets the typical seven year limit.